JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations E-ISSN: 1647-7251 [email protected] Observatório de Relações Exteriores Portugal Moita, Luís OPINION TRIBUNALS AND THE PERMANENT PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations, vol. 6, núm. 1, mayo-octubre, 2015, pp. 30-50 Observatório de Relações Exteriores Lisboa, Portugal Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=413541154003 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative OBSERVARE Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa ISSN: 1647-7251 Vol. 6, n.º 1 (May-October 2015), pp. 30-50 OPINION TRIBUNALS AND THE PERMANENT PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL Luís Moita [email protected] Director/Professor, Department of International Relations, Autonomous University of Lisbon (UAL) Portugal. Director, Observatory of Foreign Relations (OBSERVARE) Coordinator, Master in Peace and War studies, Scientific Council member, UAL. Professor, Institute of Higher Military Studies, and lecturer, National Defense Institute Vice-Rector, UAL (1992-2009) and Coordinator, Socrates Institute for Continued Training Integrated researcher, "Cities and Regions: paradiplomacy in Portugal". Abstract There is dialectic between public opinion and the enforcement of justice by the competent authorities. History contains numerous examples where international opinion movements demonstrate against judicial decisions, since, either by act or by omission, established jurisdictions sometimes pronounce questionable verdicts or leave unpunished crimes that were committed. These demonstrations take a variety of forms, ranging from the international commission of inquiry to the truth and reconciliation commissions. Among such exercises of citizenship from civil society, the so-called “opinion tribunals” stand out, whose first major initiative was due to Lord Bertrand Russell in the 1960s. Following this tradition, the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal has been very active between 1979 and 2014, organizing deliberative assemblies and pronouncing decisions in a “quasi-judicial” framework. Its critics point a finger at the resemblance of justice used for ideological purposes, but the legitimacy of these initiatives, backed by current international law, is defendable for their capacity to shake consciences and for being a legal innovation at the service of the right of peoples. Keywords: International law; public opinion; opinion tribunals; peoples’ rights; legal constructivism How to cite this article Moita, Luís (2015). "Opinion Tribunals and the Permanent People's Tribunal". JANUS.NET e- journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, N.º 1, May-October 2015. Consulted [online] on date of last visit, observare.ual.pt/janus.net/en_vol6_n1_art3 Article received on February, 5 2015 and accepted for publication on April, 6 2015 JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations ISSN: 1647-7251 Vol. 6, n.º 1 (May-October 2015), pp. 30-50 Opinion Tribunals and the Permanent People's Tribunal Luís Moita OPINION TRIBUNALS AND THE PERMANENT PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL Luís Moita Although not always widely known, the existence of “opinion tribunals” has been a reality for the past decades. As a rule, they act in the international arena. Even when dealing with internal issues of a particular country, they address global issues and the echoes of their deliberations extend beyond national borders. The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect on the nature and role of opinion tribunals, particularly the Permanent People’s Tribunal, created in Bologna in 1979. This reflection is part of a research project about international jurisdiction conducted by OBSERVARE, the international relations research unit of Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa1. The term “opinion tribunal” encompasses two concepts: the idea of “tribunal” is immediately associated with the enforcement of justice based on a legal norm; the concept of “opinion” refers to the somehow diffuse idea of public opinion, in which collective feelings, widely shared trends of ideas and beliefs insistently emphasized in public manifest themselves. There is a peculiar dialectic between law and public opinion – in our case, between national and international law and international public opinion. Due to their imperative nature and also to their gaps, laws enforced by the courts impact their influence on public opinion, projecting their values on them, disseminating rules of conduct and promoting consensus around commonly accepted principles, sometimes leaving issues unresolved; conversely, the sensitivity of public opinion displays interfere in the formulation of laws, require their enforcement or refute their failure. As a French sociologist of international relations defined wisely: Public opinion and international law should not be confused and gain nothing if they were to be confused. It is the inevitable and necessary tension between them that may lead to a bit more fairness in the world. If lawyers were to be freed of the pressure of public opinion, they would risk becoming strictly technicians of the established order. If opinion was to be left to itself, it would risk wandering endlessly in search of its projects: only law can help it 1 When preparing this text I received valuable indications and suggestions from Gianni Tognoni (Secretary General of the PPT) and Piero Basso, former comrades in mobilizing causes, as well as from Simona Fraudatario (of the Lelio Basso International Foundation). My colleagues Mario Losano, of the University of Eastern Piedmont, and Miguel Santos Neves, of Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, enriched the original text with important comments and suggestions and other colleagues, jurists Patrícia Galvão Teles, Constança Urbano de Sousa, Mateus Kowalski and Pedro Trovão do Rosário, helped overcoming my limitations in this field. Brígida Brito offered meticulous support in all methodological aspects. To all I give special thanks. 31 JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations ISSN: 1647-7251 Vol. 6, n.º 1 (May-October 2015), pp. 30-50 Opinion Tribunals and the Permanent People's Tribunal Luís Moita realize its ideal by providing it with the staff and the institutions of a new world. Accordingly, it is in the interest of the community of human beings that the dialogue between international law and public opinion never ceases. (Merle, 1985: 97). Having accepted this viewpoint, prior clarification is still required: one should not perceive “opinion tribunal” as a trial carried out by public opinion. The concept of public opinion is too volatile to support the consistency of a founded, dispassionate and weighted judgement. Justice cannot be at the mercy of the emotions of current opinion or of the vicissitudes of published views. Legal procedures, in their rigour and technical complexity, in their connection to the current legislation, in their respect for the guarantees of accused persons, are not comparable to floating perceptions and preferences, however widespread they may be. Still, that does not prevent, quite the opposite, consensus around certain principles from being gathered, so as to anticipate norms that have not yet been legislated which may later be legally enforced, or to protest against the insufficient implementation of international laws, or to fill legal loopholes or institutional omissions responsible for the impunity of criminals. Opinion movements and court rulings The history of the twentieth century is dotted with examples of opinion movements that acted as critical conscience regarding controversial acts in the enforcement of justice. Sometimes, their impact was limited to restricted circles of informed elites. In other cases, they had a long echo in public opinion. It is worth remembering some emblematic cases that were symbolic moments in the dialectic between law enforcement and international public opinion. At the end of the nineteenth century, the famous Dreyfus Affair shook public French and international opinion, with the particularity of disclosing perverse anti-Semitism reactions and triggering vehement protests that later led to justice being made. Alfred Dreyfus, an officer of Jewish origin, held posts of responsibility in the French army and in 1895 was accused of spying in favour of Germany, when the resentments of the Franco-Prussian war were still felt. After having been dispossessed of his post and deported to a distant island, Dreyfus always claimed his innocence and his case raised a wave of indignation that led to his credibility being restored. A few decades later, the United States were shaken by a tremendous miscarriage of justice that led to the death sentence of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. These two Italian immigrants, anarchists, carriers of illegal weapons, were suspected of murder and robbery, arrested in 1920 and convicted in court for murder, despite the absence of evidence and the massive appeal against their conviction: solidarity committees were created, large demonstrations were held in several countries and eminent international figures claimed for their release. All was in vain and Saco and Vanzetti were electrocuted seven years later. It was not until 1973 that the truth was officially restored and the memory of the two anarchists posthumously rehabilitated. Meanwhile, the rise of National Socialism in Germany had a dramatic episode that marked both Hitler’s escalating